How to find the inverse of a 3 by 3 matrix (3 methods you need to know)

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
  • Learn how to find the inverse of a 3 by 3 matrix for your linear algebra class!
    0:00 hello!
    0:44 [A|I] ~ [I|A^-1)
    11:10 A^-1 = 1/det(A)*adjugate(A)
    19:35 shorter version of the 2nd way
    🛍 Shop my math t-shirt & hoodies: amzn.to/3qBeuw6
    ‪@blackpenredpen‬

Komentáře • 181

  • @ProfOmarMath
    @ProfOmarMath Před 3 lety +100

    It's fun that you're embracing linear algebra

    • @blackpenredpen
      @blackpenredpen  Před 3 lety +33

      I am trying! It's been over 14 years that I haven't done any of it, lol. So I am only starting with the computational part first and then I will get into the more conceptual part.

    • @ranjitsarkar3126
      @ranjitsarkar3126 Před 3 lety

      @Leonhard Euler I am a real big fan of you Mr. Euler.
      But I cannot subscribe your channel.
      Because you are faking

    • @aashsyed1277
      @aashsyed1277 Před 2 lety

      @@ranjitsarkar3126 who?

  • @youkaihenge5892
    @youkaihenge5892 Před 3 lety +25

    When you drew that big matrix for C that face you made was hilarious knowing we all are suffering from the inverse hahaha

    • @blackpenredpen
      @blackpenredpen  Před 3 lety +8

      lol, imagine if it was a 4x4 matrix

    • @puneetmishra4726
      @puneetmishra4726 Před 3 lety +3

      @@blackpenredpen The third way could work for 4x4 matrix as well?

    • @virajagr
      @virajagr Před 3 lety +1

      @@puneetmishra4726 I guess it will work when n is odd. When n is even, the plus minus sign would mess up.

  • @parasgovind6271
    @parasgovind6271 Před 3 lety +6

    You have the best timing!!! I literally learned this topic a few days back and always complained about how long it takes! Your third method is awesome! Thank you!

  • @jordimayorgisbert6490
    @jordimayorgisbert6490 Před 3 lety +34

    I have no idea about the pretty 3rd method !!! Thank you 🙏!!
    I’ll give it to my students next monday !! Very nice !! (Like the D.I. Integrate method 😉)

  • @jeffayako
    @jeffayako Před 3 lety +5

    i love the last one u make it look really easy i will try writting a CPP code to compute the inverse using that algorithm

  • @21croz
    @21croz Před 3 lety +1

    I have an Algebra exam next week, really appreciate these videos you are uploading.
    Greetings from Chile!

  • @talentedtobi
    @talentedtobi Před 3 měsíci

    The last method is Gold.
    Thanks so much.

  • @XgamersXdimensions
    @XgamersXdimensions Před 3 lety +2

    I took Linear Algebra over the summer (and passed!) but I’ve never seen the 3rd way! Very useful and would have saved me a lot of time

  • @farkasmaganyos
    @farkasmaganyos Před 3 lety +7

    I really appreciated the 3rd version! Many thanks for that!

    • @MrKA1961
      @MrKA1961 Před 3 lety

      Szerintem is ez a nyerő.

  • @geosalatast5715
    @geosalatast5715 Před 3 lety +6

    There's a guy with a goat beard who holds a pokeball, has the Picasso painting The Scream and is talking about matrices... Pure Excellence!
    Greets from Greece!

  • @AttilioPitt
    @AttilioPitt Před 3 lety +1

    This is AMUUUSING! thank you! i love this trick

  • @angelxd7019
    @angelxd7019 Před 3 lety +3

    Gracias por compartir sus conocimientos maestro redpen 💪🙌

  • @MA-bm9jz
    @MA-bm9jz Před 3 lety +21

    Another method would be from the characteristic polynomial,by writting A^(-1) as a linear combination of A and A^2

    • @wduandy
      @wduandy Před 3 lety +1

      How?

    • @MA-bm9jz
      @MA-bm9jz Před 3 lety +4

      @@wduandy so a 3×3 matrix has a characteristic polynomial like this A^3+a_1*A^2+a_2*A+a_3*i=0 ,multiply by A^(-1) and we get A^2+a_1*A+a_2*i+a_3*A^(-1)=0 and from there you get A^(-1)

    • @SimonClarkstone
      @SimonClarkstone Před 3 lety +1

      @@MA-bm9jz How do you find a_1, a_2, a_3?

    • @MA-bm9jz
      @MA-bm9jz Před 3 lety +4

      @@SimonClarkstone you compute the characteristic polynomial,det(A-x*i),but since A is a 3×3 -a1 is the trace(since the sum of the eigenvalues is the trace),-a3 is the determinant(product of eigenvalues),all those observations come from vieta's formula,a2 is a bit more tricky,is the sum of all 2nd degree diagonal minors,or just compute det(A-x*i) and those a_i will come naturaly

    • @SimonClarkstone
      @SimonClarkstone Před 3 lety +1

      @@MA-bm9jz I don't know enough linear algebra to understand that unfortunately.

  • @AlfredPros
    @AlfredPros Před 3 lety +3

    That last trick is so cool! I wish my lecturer taught me about it!

  • @francine8563
    @francine8563 Před 2 lety +4

    thank you so much sir, you made it look easier! I just want to ask a question, regarding the 3rd way 24:30, can I use it still when solving for determinants with 4 x4 or more matrix?

  • @KN-tt7xu
    @KN-tt7xu Před 3 lety

    That 3rd method is actually very useful, thank you for showing that

  • @trueriver1950
    @trueriver1950 Před 3 lety +1

    This technique applies to any sized matrix with an inverse.
    It is the matrix algebra equivalent of doing simultaneous equations as usually taught to students before they meet matrices.

  • @GreAse0MonKey27
    @GreAse0MonKey27 Před 14 dny

    the last method is the life saver!!! :))

  • @TobyBW
    @TobyBW Před 3 lety +5

    Watching this while doing my linear algebra homework on inverse matrices

  • @atharvasharma3492
    @atharvasharma3492 Před 3 lety

    Love your videos man❤️

  • @dookey6099
    @dookey6099 Před 3 lety +6

    I just finished this topic in school , finding the inverse of 3x3 is such a pain for me because I always make stupid arithmetic blunders. Just got to be careful

  • @tomatrix7525
    @tomatrix7525 Před 3 lety +1

    Peyam - Funniest math teacher. Bprp - Coolest math teacher.

  • @SHASHANKRUSTAGII
    @SHASHANKRUSTAGII Před 3 lety +3

    Unfortunately, I knew this before u could upload this, but it is always love to see you.
    PS: You and Quang Tran look alike
    And I love you both.
    One for Maths
    One for Mukbangs

  • @egillandersson1780
    @egillandersson1780 Před 3 lety +6

    The first way is the more "theorically understandable", but the third way is the coolest to perform. Once you have computed the adjugate, you can also ignore the last raw and column and use the centre to compute de determinant (if not previously done). So, an "all in one" method !

    • @iRam8UnderScore
      @iRam8UnderScore Před 3 lety +2

      Sorry do you mean removing the first column and last row? Because that works out, whereas what you mentioned doesn't work. ??

  • @bbbeware
    @bbbeware Před 3 lety

    just happen to be taking linear right now so thanks for uploading! w00t w00t

  • @DilipWoad
    @DilipWoad Před 3 lety +1

    All the method i was knowing 😅 but i love...i taught u might have other shortcut .....the 3rd is my favourite i use it every time its easy

  • @archerdev
    @archerdev Před rokem

    matrices bless you man, thanks for this dead cool video. Much appreciated

  • @coleabrahams9331
    @coleabrahams9331 Před 3 lety

    I always used to use the second matrix. Thx for this

  • @mmh2695
    @mmh2695 Před 2 lety

    This video is so good, now I'm ready for tomorrow's exam, thx a lot

  • @rocksbit
    @rocksbit Před měsícem

    Superb video brother

  • @SwordQuake2
    @SwordQuake2 Před 3 lety +7

    The second method is best. You won't need to calculate the determinant separately if you don't have it.

  • @ItsMeTheUser
    @ItsMeTheUser Před 6 měsíci +1

    3nd way is very clever, thanks Steve!

  • @nationalstudyacademykim5030

    As a HS math tutor, you are very entertaining!

  • @dr.rahulgupta7573
    @dr.rahulgupta7573 Před 3 lety

    Sir I found 3'rd method the best .Congratulations for it .DrRahul Rohtak Haryana India

  • @saurabhin
    @saurabhin Před 3 lety +1

    I know all of the method.
    But, i like your way of teaching ♥️

  • @sugarfrosted2005
    @sugarfrosted2005 Před 3 lety

    The adjugate is good for rings without inverses because it always works. Though it might not be a real inverse, but good enough in a lot of places.

  • @rezamiau
    @rezamiau Před 3 lety +2

    Great!
    but in the second method, you could use Cofactor Matrix to evaluate Determinant easily!
    so I think the second method is much more faster than the first one.

  • @TechnoCoderz369
    @TechnoCoderz369 Před rokem +1

    Thank you Very much!

  • @k_silentstorm9611
    @k_silentstorm9611 Před 3 lety

    dude thanks so much perfect timing

  • @chawkichalladia1812
    @chawkichalladia1812 Před 3 lety +1

    i remember being good at matrix in college. i remember doing that second method. this was more than 5 years ago. the only chapter that gave me hope of being good at math xD

  • @aravinds3846
    @aravinds3846 Před 3 lety +1

    Another way to find inverse is by using Cayley-Hamilton Theorem, which gives |A -λ I | = 0 , where I is a unit matrix. When we evaluate this determinant we get an equation of degree n , where n is the order of A. The equation is in terms of λ, so replace it with A. Voila! we get an equation with variables being the matrix and constant is the unit matrix. Multiply by A inverse and get simplify the rest o the terms to evaluate A inverse

  • @TranquilSeaOfMath
    @TranquilSeaOfMath Před 8 měsíci

    Good presentation !

  • @aleksgornik
    @aleksgornik Před 3 lety +2

    Gaussian elimination sucks, it’s a bit trial and error and if you take the wrong route you go into a black whole and can’t go out of it

  • @noelsiony6265
    @noelsiony6265 Před 3 lety

    Needed this

  • @lesnyk255
    @lesnyk255 Před 3 lety +4

    I think I like method #3 the best for manual longhand calculation, but #2 as the easiest to program..

  • @pedrokalume2473
    @pedrokalume2473 Před 3 lety +1

    One more reason to start watching bprp is that he is now making Linear Algebra videos

  • @wanlitan7406
    @wanlitan7406 Před 3 lety +4

    24:25: "It's not a new way"
    Title: "Inverse of a 3 by 3 matrix (3 ways)"

  • @pauljackson3491
    @pauljackson3491 Před 3 lety +1

    For the 3rd method, the crossed out -4 is only used for the det. now?
    And can you actually start anywhere but 1,1 (where the -4 is) is easiest?

  • @DarthJeremy364
    @DarthJeremy364 Před 7 měsíci

    What if you have a 4 x 4 or 5 x 5 or anything like and n x n where n is greater than 3. Do we still add the two columns and rows to expand the matrix for the shortcut method ?

  • @trueriver1950
    @trueriver1950 Před 3 lety +2

    Fourth way: apply the BPRB technique but the second matrix is not the unit matrix but this:
    Det 0 0
    0 Det 0
    0 0 Det
    This gives you the transpose matrix in the second example.
    Remember to divide the integer matrix you get by the determinant of the original. You can either divide each element, or just write a scalar multiple of (1/Det A) in front, depending what you are about to use the matrix for.
    This offers an insight about why there is no inverse when Det = 0 because you'd be dividing by zero...
    I prefer this fourth way

  • @ose31
    @ose31 Před 3 lety

    Very good...👏👏👏👏👏👏from Brazil...

  • @drpeyam
    @drpeyam Před 3 lety +3

    Woohoo, I’m inverse ready 😇

  • @bhrigusharma5296
    @bhrigusharma5296 Před 3 lety +1

    I loved the third method.

  • @Olavotemrazaodenovo
    @Olavotemrazaodenovo Před 3 lety

    Congratulations from Brazil.

  • @AttilioPitt
    @AttilioPitt Před 3 lety

    The last method is very beautiful for optimazing the inverse. I really want to use it in an exam, but i think that i need to demostrate it. Could you please help me, please?
    Thx

  • @chunfaimok767
    @chunfaimok767 Před 3 lety

    I am actually looping 9:40,13:42,15:40 those charming laughter

  • @6754bettkitty
    @6754bettkitty Před 3 lety +1

    You should cover pseudo-inverses!

  • @DarthJeremy364
    @DarthJeremy364 Před 7 měsíci +2

    please note i do not think the last method applies to matrices greater than 3 x 3

  • @jordimayorgisbert6490
    @jordimayorgisbert6490 Před 3 lety +1

    I’ve a little "improve", making the T operation over the A matrix at the first, and then work with it. You'll avoid the final arrangement for making the T. I'm based on the property Adj(A^T) = (Adj(A))^T. That's only a suggest !! ;-)

  • @yuliiavideo
    @yuliiavideo Před 3 lety +1

    The third way is excellent. May I teach my students this method?

  • @victorrodriguez866
    @victorrodriguez866 Před 3 lety

    does the third method work for matrices with range > 3?

  • @daphenomenalz5784
    @daphenomenalz5784 Před 3 lety +2

    Great video...actually Today i was trying to find some more ways to calculate the inverse of a matrix and you helped me a lot. thank you...but now I'm wondering how to compute inverse of a (n by n) matrix
    where, n is any unknown positive integer
    Please share how to do this

    • @blackpenredpen
      @blackpenredpen  Před 3 lety +3

      Thank you for you comment.
      I think, unfortunately, once we get a bigger matrix, we have to use either method 1 or method 2..

  • @michaelempeigne3519
    @michaelempeigne3519 Před 3 lety

    Does this work for all matrices for n x n matrices with n > 3 ?

  • @higgs_boson2231
    @higgs_boson2231 Před 3 lety

    You should do topology or abstract algebra!

  • @analog_dreamer
    @analog_dreamer Před 3 lety

    Just when I need it ❤😭

  • @tamarpeer261
    @tamarpeer261 Před 3 lety +1

    It's the same matrix as the o e for the determinant trick. Is it special?

  • @l3igl2eaper
    @l3igl2eaper Před 3 lety

    I've always loved method two.

  • @nickk4125
    @nickk4125 Před 3 lety

    The last one really made me happy

  • @sabriath
    @sabriath Před 3 lety +1

    I feel like a form of cryptographic key could be constructed with matrixes somehow.....maybe this will inspire me for the next week.

  • @gmbaye9374
    @gmbaye9374 Před 3 lety

    like ur matrix video. thx

  • @holyshit922
    @holyshit922 Před rokem

    a_{n}=1
    a_{m}=-1/(n-m)(sum(a[j+m]tr(A^{j}),j=1..n-m))
    This will give you characteristic polynomial
    and from Cayley Hamilton we will get the inverse
    This is not as fast as elimination but faster than cofactor method

  • @virajagr
    @virajagr Před 3 lety +1

    Can you do proof for second method? Thank you

  • @BCS-IshtiyakAhmadKhan
    @BCS-IshtiyakAhmadKhan Před 3 lety +1

    The method used in the thumbnail was already taught by my teacher last year

  • @therealgoat3367
    @therealgoat3367 Před 3 měsíci

    "6 - 2 is... Why is that so hard?"...FELT!!!!

  • @vinayaktyagi1001
    @vinayaktyagi1001 Před 3 lety +1

    He : inverse of a matri-
    Me : *adj(A) / |A|*
    Adjugate ? I learned it as adjoint . Well both are same anyways so doesn't really matter

  • @Sergeak21
    @Sergeak21 Před 3 lety +2

    WHATTT the third way is actually witchcraft. I have been wasting my time doing the second-way smh.

  • @sambhav2727
    @sambhav2727 Před 3 lety

    I have a doubt on characteristic equation of a matrix..For a 3x3 matrix A , we know that sum of eigenvalues = trace of A(sum of diagonal elements of A), and product of eigenvalues= determinant of A..For a 3x3 matrix,is there any significance of sum of product of eigenvalues taken 2 at a time? (i.e. (coeff of A) )

  • @bsb0
    @bsb0 Před 3 lety +1

    I wish I watched this video yesterday. before my linear algebra final😂

  • @redstoneplayz09
    @redstoneplayz09 Před 3 lety

    I don't even know linear algebra but I am watching this because it seems smart.

  • @shunmugasathishk9365
    @shunmugasathishk9365 Před 3 lety +3

    The 1st method that you've done is Gauss-Jordan method

  • @lolegarcesfuster9090
    @lolegarcesfuster9090 Před 3 lety

    can somebody clarify the rigorous name of the 3rd method in order to pre-quote the method before solving the exercise.

  • @otheraccount5252
    @otheraccount5252 Před 3 lety

    Now that you have used a blue pen, are you going to rename your channel to blackpenredpenbluepen?

  • @alexnoussi
    @alexnoussi Před 6 měsíci

    The 2nd way is familiar, and the third one is rather peculiarly interesting.

  • @mduya6239
    @mduya6239 Před 3 lety

    很久沒看你影片了,怎麼突然留鬍子了XD

  • @juarezmazzucajunior9529

    Buenas! Obrigado!

  • @virajagr
    @virajagr Před 3 lety +1

    Can the 3rd method be extended for higher order matrices as well? That is, copy first 3 columns and rows for 4×4 instead of 2 which is for 3×3. And then take determinant for each 3×3 matrices formed inside

    • @ShinichiKudou2008
      @ShinichiKudou2008 Před 3 lety +1

      I think that will work for sizes of an odd number (but not even number) because when a column in a square matrix of size of an odd number is shifted to the opposite end the determinant doesn't change sign.

    • @virajagr
      @virajagr Před 3 lety

      @@ShinichiKudou2008 ah that makes sense, thanks

  • @debunkosaurus8228
    @debunkosaurus8228 Před 3 lety

    Question: Do all of these methods work for matrices that are larger than 3x3?

    • @smrtfasizmu6161
      @smrtfasizmu6161 Před 3 lety

      The first method has to work for square matrices of any size (as long as their determinant is not zero of course)

  • @mathieus-c6761
    @mathieus-c6761 Před 3 lety

    "dididididida" (delete this, delete that)
    Love ur vids, keep going on !!

  • @nex
    @nex Před 3 lety +1

    Here's the ‘how to determinant‘ video: czcams.com/video/TkNeDxoRikY/video.html (Maybe put that link in the description, 曹?)

  • @francine8563
    @francine8563 Před 2 lety

    i like the 3rd way the most

  • @VJ-dv4ub
    @VJ-dv4ub Před 3 lety

    pure brain juice
    Thank you very much sir
    bye the way awesome beard sir

  • @arnaldosantoro6812
    @arnaldosantoro6812 Před 3 lety +1

    11:00
    "either you like it or you hate it"
    Clearly hates it

  • @muskyoxes
    @muskyoxes Před 3 lety

    Is it a coincidence that one of the rows of the inverse don't have the nasty 13 denominator, or is something deeper going on? It's suspicious to me that, in the cofactor matrix, the multiples of 13 happen to line up.

  • @BaiLanRenSheng
    @BaiLanRenSheng Před 3 lety

    What is the name of 3rd method?

  • @laurensiusfabianussteven6518

    The sad part is i see this when i already completed my linear algebra course :'

  • @abhisheksharmavats8326
    @abhisheksharmavats8326 Před 3 lety +1

    3rd is nice

  • @trueriver1950
    @trueriver1950 Před 3 lety +1

    If you have a prime determinant, you usually end up with that as the denominator of a fraction in at least one row.
    If you have a compound determinant, you could have that as the denominator in one row, or you could choose to have fractions in different rows whose denominators multiply to that number.
    There are occasional exceptions to both the above.

  • @legendarytaj2054
    @legendarytaj2054 Před 3 lety

    Way 3 is better if you have the determinant if not then gotta go with way 1.

  • @NannoChii
    @NannoChii Před 3 lety

    Wow❤️

  • @hareecionelson5875
    @hareecionelson5875 Před 2 měsíci +1

    thanks to this video I have coded an nxn inverse calculator in python. The determinant function was the trickiest, since it's recursive.